What was the real reason Trump fired Comey today?

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:08 am

gold21 wrote:

OK, because he's definitely accomplished things are are objectively positive in a non-partisan way. Therefore, I can safely conclude that there is a bias here that blurs the way you see our current president.

The way Trump critics go on about the Trumpies who follow Trump blindly, I can say the same about Trump haters. People see what they want to see. Human nature. Tongue Out

Care to share what you think are "objectively postive in a non-partisan way"? I don't see it, but maybe I missed it.

And FTR, I thought Obama did plenty wrong, and Bush did plenty right. That's the way the world works.

Jeanette

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:19 am

Any discussion of good things that trump has done or things you like about trump is a distraction. Nixon did some very good things as president. That does not change the fact that he was thoroughly corrupt. Firing the FBI chief who's leading an investigation of your administration is an act of corruption, period. Thats something we need to protest regardless of how much you like the president. The difference is that nixon had members of his party willing to stand up to him. Today, zero.

wondergirl

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:28 am

Jeanette wrote:

We had a presidential candidate who was under investigation by the FBI but her party had no problem allowing her to continue to run for presidency. In fact, they were angry that the FBI dared to investigate her after they found more evidence on her corrupt activity. Would they have been okay with it if it were the "other side" who had a presidential candidate continue to run for presidency if the FBI was investigating him/her? In other words, if the roles were reversed and it was Trump who was under an FBI investigation then do you think that the democrats would have allowed him to continue running for presidency?

Jeanette

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:41 am

Well I guess we'll never know what might have been, but I don't recall obama firing the head of the FBI for investigating clinton. And I can't imagine the Republicans being all hunky dory about it if he had. The issue isn't the fact of the president being investigated but his attempts to impede it.

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:42 am

wondergirl wrote:

There was no evidence of "corrupt" activity. There was not "more evidence" found. Comey purposely torpedoed Clinton by stating that additional emails were located; they turned out to be nothing. The problem wasn't looking into it. The problem was announcing it.

But since you're so opposed to a candidate under investigation, are you supporting the call for an independent investigation into Russia's interference in the election, and calling for Trump to step down given the investigation?

lkwdmommy

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:43 am

MagentaYenta wrote:

List 5.

1. Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court
2. Niki Haley in the UN (awesome lady!!!)
3. Daniel Friedman for Ambassador to Israel
4. Opened Keystone (?) pipeline
5. Repealing many regulations stifling business

Just to start.

treestump

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:45 am

lkwdmommy wrote:

Uh the question was to list accomplishments that are "objectively postive in a non-partisan way."

wondergirl

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:56 am

SixOfWands wrote:

I'm all for an independent person or team to do investigations into everyone working in Washington, including Trump and Schumer. I would also like independent investigations on Obama, Clinton, lawyers, and/or any judge who grants foreigners and illegal aliens protection and rights that are reserved for American citizens which is ultimately hurting America. I dont care which party you are or what color your skin is, I care that you are not corrupt and you are doing what is best for American citizens. Why is that so difficult? And is there anyone out there that is capable of doing that without caring about politics?

Fox

Wed, May 10 2017, 11:58 am

To quote Ben Shapiro, "This is the best season of The Apprentice yet!"

The idea that Trump fired Comey to derail an investigation into Russian influence in the election is entirely too facile. I'd opt for one of the following theories, and probably a combination:

If Not Now, When?
In an interview on NPR with one of Comey's former colleagues (sorry, I didn't catch his name -- I was driving), it was mentioned that Comey has very few friends left in Washington. Everyone expected Trump to fire Comey shortly after his inauguration, but he didn't. However, that doesn't mean that it wasn't in the works.

The fact that the firing came immediately after Clapper and Yates acknowledged in Senate testimony that there is no evidence of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign suggests that the White House wanted to capitalize on that finding. The fact that Clapper was critical of Comey couldn't have helped.

Sleight of Hand -- Part I
There are several major campaign promises that Trump is going to have to completely renege on or achieve in highly compromised forms. A wall along the Mexican border . . . moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to Yerushalayim . . . "repealing" the ACA.

Sending the media and his critics on a wild goose chase over Comey's firing drives these stories below the fold (below the screen?) and diverts potential criticism from his base.

Sleight of Hand -- Part II
So far the Russian conspiracy theories haven't panned out, but there are plenty of other issues that deserve a lot more attention than they're getting: for example, Jared Kushner's investment relationships and Kellyanne Conway's divestment from her polling company. Again, with people chasing their tails over Comey, these stories are getting less play.

How to Get the Democrats' Goat
While this reason wouldn't stand alone, I believe it is definitely a contributory factor. Comey was living on borrowed time anyway -- both Republicans and Democrats wanted him out for various reasons. Knowing that Democrats like Schumer wouldn't be able to resist condemning him, Trump dealt with Comey in a way to make various Democrats look as ridiculous as possible.

How to Get the Media's Goat
A little-remarked detail of this story is that it came as a complete surprise to the media. In general, White House correspondents are given a heads-up on such actions to allow them to file their stories quickly. This practice isn't official; it's just what WH press secretaries have been in the habit of doing -- until now. The WH correspondents are already testy because they now have to work on weekends. They considered this a major dis.

Whatever the combination of factors, my take is that the WH very much wants everyone's attention on Comey's firing. Yes, of course Russia attempted to influence the election. The U.S. regularly does the same. However, that's a far cry from active collusion, and there seems to be no evidence of that. In fact, I read one account that Russia's attempts were animated more by Putin's personal dislike of Clinton than by strategy. While that seems farfetched, it's not entirely out of line with Putin's character.

As for whether Trump has done anything positive, it's silly to claim that he hasn't. He's also done some stupid and unproductive things. I would identify the following five positives:

* Reduced illegal immigration
* Improved stock market performance
* Higher consumer confidence
* Increased confidence from businesses
* Actually negotiates trade deals, etc., rather than acquiescing

Now, most of these are not quantifiable until the end of his presidency, at the earliest. Will increased consumer and business confidence actually result in more jobs? We'll have to see. However, it's a good start.

The stupid and unproductive things he's done are mostly associated with his and his staff's inexperience -- which was, IMHO, his biggest weakness during the campaign. However much one wants to "drain the swamp," one has to have something with which to replace all the swamp-dwellers. Nevertheless, the most dire predictions have not come to pass and show no signs of doing so.

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:05 pm

treestump wrote:

Uh the question was to list accomplishments that are "objectively postive in a non-partisan way."

C'mon. No one was concerned about the environmental impact of the Keystone Pipeline, water contamination, or damage to sacred Native American sites. The so-called massive protests? Fake news.

Daniel Friedman? Sure, he's to the right of Netanyahu, particularly on the issue of annexation of the West Bank. But isn't everyone?

Repeal of regulations? Everyone agrees that what's good for business is good for America. Annoy that pesky little economic meltdown we had a few years ago. Life is good!

Neil Gorsuch had a 100% positive vote. Everyone wanted him! And if you don't want to stay with your disabled truck in sub-zero temperatures, you deserve what you get.

And Nikki Haley ... who cares about ethics violations!

treestump

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:11 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Exactly. Well put.

I'm afraid some people might actually take your post seriously though. Smile

PinkFridge

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:17 pm

treestump wrote:

Uh the question was to list accomplishments that are "objectively postive in a non-partisan way."

Just curious. Is Nikki Haley a non-partisan accomplishment?

ETA: not aware of her ethics violations. I still think she's doing a great job.

Last edited by PinkFridge on Wed, May 10 2017, 12:19 pm; edited 1 time in total

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:17 pm

treestump wrote:

Exactly. Well put.

I'm afraid some people might actually take your post seriously though. Smile

I've long since come to the conclusion that no one here -- or in real life for that matter -- takes me seriously on any issue.

lkwdmommy

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:27 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

C'mon! This is a big country and you'd be hard-pressed to find 100% bi-partisanship on anything. Except for the missile strike on the Syrian air base. That had kudos across party lines.

There were many Dems who agreed that the Keystone Pipeline should have been approved. Even some Obama employees, but they did not feel free to say so while he was pres.

Daniel Friedman is very right-wing. But at least Israel doesn't have to worry so much that he will throw them under the bus no matter what they do. AAMOF, do you think any former ambassador would have kept so silent during this Palestinian hunger strike?

Did you ever have to deal with some of those massive regulations, which often changed from one week to the next? 'Nuff said.

Of course we would all love to have court rulings that reflect our opinion. But the law is the law. If judges change the law based on their feelings of compassion, there would be no legal system to depend on. In this case, the driver made the decision to abandon his truck even though his contract did not allow him to do so. Wise move? Of course it was. But, legally, he broke his contract. Was it worth breaking the contract and saving his life? Of course. But that does not mean the law should be changed. OTOH, that employer was really nasty to fire him. I would not advise anyone to go work for them ever.

Nikki Haley has singlehandedly turned the UN on its head. And that can only be for the good. (And I haven't heard about her ethics violations.)

treestump

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:34 pm

You just told us your opinion, lkwdmommy. You didn't tell us any objective facts. You told us a very partisan, subjective opinion.

gold21

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:34 pm

When I say non partisan, I mean job related

Jobs jobs jobs

Etc

Jobs are a non partisan issue

Of course I think Trump has accomplished other good things, but a lot of that is partisan.

sequoia

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:36 pm

Everybody does some good and some bad; the question is what kind of atmosphere are they creating overall.

gold21

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:38 pm

sequoia wrote:

Everybody does some good and some bad; the question is what kind of atmosphere are they creating overall.

But when someone cannot see any good being done at all, it generally points to some sort of bias.

SixOfWands

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:46 pm

gold21 wrote:

When I say non partisan, I mean job related

Jobs jobs jobs

Etc

Jobs are a non partisan issue

Of course I think Trump has accomplished other good things, but a lot of that is partisan.

Jobs created February 2015 238,000
Jobs created February 2016 237,000
Jobs created February 2017 235,000

Forgive me for not being overwhelmed.

Of course, he had not DONE anything at that point. Its all just expectation. So I don't blame him, either.

sequoia

Wed, May 10 2017, 12:52 pm

gold21 wrote:

But when someone cannot see any good being done at all, it generally points to some sort of bias.

True. Especially in the context of us complaining for decades about how anti-Israel the UN is, not appreciating Haley seems odd.